A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 19-01098.a1
Appeal BoardDecided May 11, 2020 · Administrative Judge Michael Y. Ra'anan · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a security clearance but was denied based on concerns under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error by the Judge and that new evidence presented in the appeal could not be considered.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant's appeal brief did not assert harmful error by the Judge.
- The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence not presented to the Judge.
- Financial hardship and lack of access to classified information are not relevant to clearance eligibility.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- H Drug Involvement and Substance Misuseapplied
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2019-06-20
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
- Decision date
- 2020-05-11
Cite for
- Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
- Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
- Relevance of Financial Hardship in Clearance Decisions
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Appeal at a glance
The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline H and Guideline B. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision, noting that the applicant did not assert any harmful error in his appeal brief.
Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision: what the case says, not a prediction or advice.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. His brief does contain assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01098.a1 DATE: 05/11/2020
DATE: May 11, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-01098 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 20, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. Department Counsel later withdrew the Guideline B allegations. On February 7, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. His brief does contain assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that loss of his security clearance would cause him financial hardship and notes he does not have access to classified information. Those matters, however, are not relevant considerations in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10758 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013)(addressing the adverse impact of a decision) and ISCR Case No. 18-02728 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 12, 2019)(addressing the lack of access to classified information).
The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is sustainable.
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board